Literature DB >> 23442569

Communication outcomes for groups of children using cochlear implants enrolled in auditory-verbal, aural-oral, and bilingual-bicultural early intervention programs.

Shani Dettman1, Elizabeth Wall, Gabriella Constantinescu, Richard Dowell.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The relative impact of early intervention approach on speech perception and language skills was examined in these 3 well-matched groups of children using cochlear implants. STUDY
DESIGN: Eight children from an auditory verbal intervention program were identified. From a pediatric database, researchers blind to the outcome data, identified 23 children from auditory oral programs and 8 children from bilingual-bicultural programs with the same inclusion criteria and equivalent demographic factors. PATIENTS: All child participants were male, had congenital profound hearing loss (pure tone average >80 dBHL), no additional disabilities, were within the normal IQ range, were monolingual English speakers, had no unusual findings on computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging, and received hearing aids and cochlear implants at a similar age and before 4 years of age. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Open-set speech perception (consonant-nucleus-consonant [CNC] words and Bamford-Kowal-Bench [BKB] sentences) and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) were administered.
RESULTS: The mean age at cochlear implant was 1.7 years (range, 0.8-3.9; SD, 0.7), mean test age was 5.4 years (range, 2.5-10.1; SD, 1.7), and mean device experience was 3.7 years (range, 0.7-7.9; SD, 1.8). Results indicate mean CNC scores of 60%, 43%, and 24% and BKB scores of 77%, 77%, and 56% for the auditory-verbal (AV), aural-oral (AO), and bilingual-bicultural (BB) groups, respectively. The mean PPVT delay was 13, 19, and 26 months for AV, AO, and BB groups, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Despite equivalent child demographic characteristics at the outset of this study, by 3 years postimplant, there were significant differences in AV, AO, and BB groups. Results support consistent emphasis on oral/aural input to achieve optimum spoken communication outcomes for children using cochlear implants.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23442569     DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3182839650

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Otol Neurotol        ISSN: 1531-7129            Impact factor:   2.311


  6 in total

1.  Dual language versus English-only support for bilingual children with hearing loss who use cochlear implants and hearing aids.

Authors:  Ferenc Bunta; Michael Douglas; Hanna Dickson; Amy Cantu; Jennifer Wickesberg; René H Gifford
Journal:  Int J Lang Commun Disord       Date:  2016-03-27       Impact factor: 3.020

2.  Auditory Deprivation Does Not Impair Executive Function, But Language Deprivation Might: Evidence From a Parent-Report Measure in Deaf Native Signing Children.

Authors:  Matthew L Hall; Inge-Marie Eigsti; Heather Bortfeld; Diane Lillo-Martin
Journal:  J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ       Date:  2016-09-13

3.  Role of bimodal stimulation for auditory-perceptual skills development in children with a unilateral cochlear implant.

Authors:  P Marsella; S Giannantonio; A Scorpecci; F Pianesi; M Micardi; A Resca
Journal:  Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 2.124

4.  Audiovisual spoken word training can promote or impede auditory-only perceptual learning: prelingually deafened adults with late-acquired cochlear implants versus normal hearing adults.

Authors:  Lynne E Bernstein; Silvio P Eberhardt; Edward T Auer
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-08-26

5.  Visual Cross-Modal Re-Organization in Children with Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Julia Campbell; Anu Sharma
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-01-25       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 6.  How Effective Is Auditory-Verbal Therapy (AVT) for Building Language Development of Children with Cochlear Implants? A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Paris Binos; Elina Nirgianaki; George Psillas
Journal:  Life (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-13
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.